coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  Between 1 March 2005 and 21 September 2011 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-42/2 in the Kemerovo Region. The prison was overcrowded. Thus, cell 219 measuring 36 sq. m was designed for 12 and housed up to 18 individuals. Since October 2011 the applicant was isolated from the other detainees and kept in virtually solitary confinement conditions. In addition, the applicant claimed that on several occasions he had been beaten by prison wardens.
6.  From 12 June to 7 September 2005, from 29 October to 27 November 2009 and from 7 to 15 December 2010 the applicant was transferred from the remand prison to a prison hospital to undergo medical treatment.
7.  It appears that the applicant complained to the regional prosecutor about the conditions of his detention in the remand prison. On an unspecified date he received the prosecutor’s reply and challenged it before courts.
8.  On 28 April 2011 the Kuznetskiy District Court of Novokuznetsk rejected the applicant’s claims.
9.  On 21 June 2011 the Kemerovo Regional Court upheld the above judgment on appeal.
7.  On 10 December 2008 the applicant was charged with an aggravated fraud and remanded in custody.
8.  On 4 February 2010 the Arzamas Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment and a fine. The applicant appealed, complaining about a number of procedural irregularities and allegedly erroneous assessment of the evidence.
9.  On 9 April 2010 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction, reducing the sentence by one month.
10.  During several periods between 10 December 2008 and 6 February 2010 the applicant was held in the temporary detention centre (IVS) of Arzamas in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region. He was regularly taken out of that facility either to take part in the trial or to undergo medical treatment in a prison hospital.
11.  The conditions of the applicant’s detention in IVS of Arzamas were characterised by the following elements: the applicant’s cell 6 in the basement measured 5.3 sq. m and accommodated two inmates, there was no window, table or bench, the toilet was not seaprated from the rest of the cell by a partition. In addition, no outdoor exercise was available to the detainees.
12.  The applicant brought an action in connection with poor conditions of detention in IVS of Arzamas. By the judgment of 18 February 2010, the Arzamas Town Court found that the applicant had been detained in an overcrowded cell located in the basement that had no windows. The applicant was not taken outdoors. It held that the conditions of the applicant’s detention during that period had fallen short of the requirements of Russian law.
5.  On 13 June 2007 the Ust-Ilimsk Town Court of the Irkutsk Region found the applicant guilty of inflicting grave bodily harm which caused the death of the victim and sentenced him to a prison term. The applicant appealed, claiming in general terms that the proceedings had been unfair, and that the court had applied domestic law and assessed the evidence erroneously. He further alleged that the court had failed to examine two witnesses and had delivered its judgment in the absence of one of the co‑defendants.
6.  On 1 October 2007 the Irkutsk Regional Court quashed the conviction on appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination.
7.  On 20 March 2009 the Ust-Ilimsk Town Court found the applicant guilty of the same offence and gave him a custodial sentence. The applicant appealed. Giving no further details, he alleged that the Town Court had applied domestic law and assessed the evidence erroneously, and that it had rejected the majority of the motions lodged by the defence. He further complained about the change of his counsel during the proceedings.
8.  On 5 October 2009 the Irkutsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint and upheld the judgment on appeal.
9.  Between 26 September 2005 and 9 January 2009 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-38/2 of the Irkutsk Region. The prison was severely overcrowded. Thus, cell 95 measuring 24 sq. m was equipped with 8 sleeping places and accommodated up to 17 inmates. In addition, the applicant claimed that he had contracted tuberculosis during his stay there.
10.  From 23 February to 27 April 2008 the applicant was transferred to remand prison IZ-38/1 of Irkutsk and from 17 July to 3 August 2008 he was transferred to penitentiary medical facility LIU-27 in the Irkutsk Region for treatment of his tuberculosis.
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Dabas.
6.  In 1985 the applicant’s father brought an action in compensation and including other claims before the Pest Central District Court. In 1986 the applicant joined the litigation.
7.  Between June 1995 and January 1998 as well as between March 2000 and December 2004 the case was interrupted on account of the deaths of several of the altogether 37 respondents.
8.  In 2007 the applicant’s father died. The court again interrupted the proceedings pending the entry into litigation of the successor. However, it appears that this successor was the applicant herself, who had been party to the case since 1986.
9.  The case is still pending before the Pest Central District Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 25 January 2006 the applicant brought an action in compensation in the context of water damage in her condominium.
6.  After holding several hearings and obtaining expert evidence, on 18 March 2010 the Buda Central District Court found for the applicant.
7.  On 6 October 2010 the Budapest Regional Court reversed this judgment.
8.  On 2 June 2011 the Supreme Court rejected, without an examination on the merits, the applicant’s petition for review since it did not meet the statutory requirements.
5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Velké Dravce, Slovakia.
6.  The applicant and his former spouse, also of Slovakian nationality, found employment in Hungary and settled there in 2004. They married in Slovakia in 2005. Their child, also a Slovakian citizen, was born in Hatvan, Hungary, in 2007.
7.  As their marriage deteriorated, the wife lodged a divorce action and a custody claim with the Hungarian Hatvan District Court on 18 June 2008.
8.  The applicant filed an objection contesting the jurisdiction of the Hungarian courts. The District Court held a hearing and dismissed the case, accepting the applicant’s argument. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant had filed a divorce action before the Slovakian Rimavská Sobota District Court.
9.  On appeal, the Hungarian Heves County Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision on 19 February 2009, for further circumstances to be clarified, namely the exact date of filing the action before the Slovakian court. The Regional Court noted that the law applicable by the Hatvan District Court was the Slovakian one.
10.  In the resumed proceedings, the Hatvan District Court ascertained that the action before the Slovakian court had been filed on 24 June 2008, that is, six days later than the one before the Hungarian court. During the procedure the court obtained the necessary translation of the Slovakian law.
The District Court rejected the applicant’s jurisdictional objection on 10 March 2010, holding that the Slovakian case had been pre-empted by the Hungarian one. On his appeal, the second-instance court upheld the decision on 16 June 2010.
11.  Meanwhile, the applicant filed a complaint about the protraction of the proceedings. The objection was dismissed by the Heves County Regional Court on 18 May 2010. The court held that there was no unreasonable delay or omission to be observed during the proceedings.
12.  The first hearing on the merits was held by the Hatvan District Court on 5 October 2010 in the absence of the applicant. Although two more hearings were held on 8 February and 28 April 2011, the applicant, properly summoned, failed to appear.
13.  Meanwhile, the applicant had brought several actions against his former spouse before the Slovakian Rimavská Sobota District Court. The applicant’s contact with his child was also regulated with provisional measure by that court on 22 December 2008.
14.  On 28 April 2011 the Hatvan District Court dissolved the applicant’s marriage and ordered him to pay child maintenance.
15.  The applicant appealed but the Hungarian Eger High Court upheld the first-instance decision on 15 February 2012. This decision was served on the applicant on 15 June 2012.
16.  The applicant lodged a petition for review. On 14 May 2013 the Kúria rejected the request since it was excluded by law in such cases.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Siófok.
5.  On 11 January 2002 the applicant was dismissed from the civil service.
6.  On 20 February 2002 she challenged her dismissal before the Budapest Labour Court.
7.  On 15 May 2003 the court found for the applicant, establishing that her dismissal had been unlawful, and awarded her compensation.
8.  On appeal, on 17 March 2004 the Budapest Regional Court upheld in essence the first instance decision, increased the award, but dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s compensation claims and, as to the applicant’s claim regarding the amount of certain additional allowances, it remitted the case to the first-instance court.
9.  On 5 September 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the second-instance decision and remitted the case to the Labour Court.
10.  In the resumed proceedings, on 7 June 2007 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action.
11. On 29 October 2008 the Budapest Regional Court reversed the first-instance decision and awarded compensation to the applicant. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court on 31 March 2010.
12.  The applicant’s further pecuniary claims, also originating in the labour dispute, were finally adjudicated on 16 January 2013 by the Budapest High Court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1954. At present he is serving his prison sentence in Jilava Prison.
6.  On 11 October 2011 the High Court of Cassation and Justice sentenced the applicant to ten years’ imprisonment.
7.  Since 23 September 2009 the applicant has been held in a number of different detention centres. Initially he was detained in Bucharest police station and then transferred to Rahova and Jilava Prisons. In respect of the establishments in which he was detained, the applicant alleged that he had been kept in overcrowded cells in poor conditions of hygiene. He also alleged that, despite the fact that he was a non-smoker, he had been detained with inmates who smoked inside the cell in all three prisons. He claimed that his health had worsened because of the conditions in which he had been kept and that he had been diagnosed with tuberculosis.
8.  The Government supplied the following details concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention in each establishment:
9.  The applicant was detained in Bucharest police station no. 15 between 23 and 30 September 2009 and again from 9 October to 24 November 2009, in cell no. 3.
10.  Cell no. 3 had a surface area of 16.25 square metres and was occupied by six detainees.
11.  The applicant was detained in Rahova Prison for the following periods: from 24 November 2009 to 7 June 2011; from 16 June 2011 to 20 January 2012; from 26 January to 2 April 2012 and from 4 April to 8 June 2012.
12.  The Government submitted that each cell occupied by the applicant during the above-mentioned periods had a surface area of 19.58 square metres and was occupied by between nine and eleven detainees.
13.  The applicant has been detained in Jilava Prison from 8 June 2012 to date.
The cells in which the applicant has been detained are as follows:
- cell E1.16 and E1.20 with a surface area of 12.69 square metres and occupied by up to six detainees;
- cell E3.5 with a surface area of 34.78 square metres and occupied by up to twenty-seven detainees;
- cell E3.8 with a surface area of 51.08 square metres and occupied by up to thirty-five detainees;
- cell E3. 13 with a surface area of 33.08 square metres and occupied by between nineteen and twenty-four detainees;
- cell E6.26 with a surface area of 44.97 square metres and occupied by up to twenty-six detainees;
- cell E4. 35 with a surface area of 44.97 square metres and occupied by up to twenty-three detainees;
- and cell E6.16 with a surface area of 14.71 square metres and occupied by up to twelve detainees.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ljubljana.
5.  On 1 December 1993 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court against his employer, company K. and four further defendants.
6.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia.
7.  On 4 August 1994 the first defendant, company K. replied to the claim.
8.  On 28 March 2003 the applicant was requested to supplement or amend his claim.
9.  On 14 April 2003 the applicant lodged his submissions by which he withdrew the action against the second, third, fourth and fifth defendant and proposed to determine another court with subject matter jurisdiction.
10.  On 15 July 2003 the court stayed the proceedings against the second, third, fourth and fifth defendant.
11.  On 23 September 2003 the Supreme Court issued a decision by which it dismissed the applicant’s request to determine another court with subject matter jurisdiction.
12.  On 23 March 2004 the court adjourned the first main hearing at the request of both parties.
13.  On 31 May 2004 the settlement hearing and the first main hearing were held.
14.  On 24 June 2004 the second main hearing was held.
15.  On 15 February 2005 the scheduled hearing was postponed at the applicant’s request.
16.  Between 14 April 2005 and 14 September 2006 further four hearings were held.
17.  On 21 September 2006 the Labour and Social Court partially upheld the applicant’s claim and dismissed the remainder of the claim. Both parties appealed.
18.  On 18 January 2007 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the appeals and issued a decision that an appeal on points of law would not be allowed in the present case. The applicant appealed.
19.  On 24 April 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision that appeal on points of law was not allowed. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
20.  On 17 October 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal.
5.  The applicant is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom.
6.  At the time of the events the applicant company was the creditor of company C. which, in its turn, was the creditor of company P. On 1 October 2005 the applicant company and company C. concluded an agreement by which the debt owed by company P. to company C. was assigned to the applicant company in lieu of the debt owed by company C. to the applicant company.
7.  Later company P. became bankrupt and the insolvency procedure was commenced in its respect. On 10 May 2006 the applicant company requested that the Chişinău Economic Court allow it to replace company C. in the list of creditors of company P. In so doing, the applicant company relied on an agreement that it had concluded on 1 October 2005 with company C.
8.  On 5 June 2006 the Chişinău Economic Court held a public hearing in the case and accepted the applicant company’s request. As a result the applicant company replaced company C. in the list of creditors of company P. with a debt of some 14,015,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of some 901,000 euros (EUR)).
9.  On 16 October 2006 company C. lodged an appeal against the above decision on the ground, inter alia, that the agreement of 1 October 2005 was faulty and that the persons who had signed it from both sides had acted ultra vires.
10.  On 9 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice examined the appeal lodged by company C. in a hearing to which the applicant company had not been summoned to appear. The other parties participated in the hearing. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and reversed the judgment of the lower court. In particular, the Supreme Court held that the person who had signed the agreement of 1 October 2005 on behalf of company C. had acted ultra vires, because at the relevant time she had been on maternity leave. The decision of the Supreme Court of Justice was final and the applicant company was excluded from the list of creditors of company P.
5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Budapest.
6.  On 16 June 1998 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant and his associates for embezzlement and other offences.
On 7 June 2002 a bill of indictment was preferred.
7.  A first instance judgment was adopted on 17 November 2009. The Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court took into account as a mitigating factor the lapse of time and imposed only a fine.
This judgment was quashed on appeal.
8.  In the resumed proceedings, a first-instance judgment was adopted afresh, in which the lapse of time was again appreciated as a mitigating factor.
This judgment was also quashed on appeal.
9.  The case was then resumed before the Budapest High Court. On 23 April 2013 this court convicted the applicant and imposed only a fine, holding that the lapse of time was an important mitigating factor.
10.  An appeal by the public prosecutor is currently pending before the Budapest Court of Appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 22 February 2002 the applicant, then head of the Budapest Public Administration Authority, was dismissed from the civil service, as a disciplinary measure. In the ensuing labour action the parties reached a friendly settlement on 22 March 2002; the applicant was reinstated and obtained damages. However, on the same day, the Prime Minister revoked his mandate to preside over the Authority. As a consequence, the applicant left the Authority.
6.  From this labour dispute, four sets of proceedings ensued. On 2 May 2002 the applicant brought a labour action, claiming unlawful revocation of his mandate. In parallel, the Authority brought a civil action against the applicant, claiming the invalidity of the friendly settlement and seeking the reimbursement of the compensation received by the applicant. The applicant also brought labour proceedings, claiming the unlawfulness of the disciplinary measure imposed on him on 22 February 2002 as well as his salary arrears.
7.  The friendly settlement was annulled by a final judgment of the Baranya County Regional Court, acting as a second instance court, on 3 November 2005.
8.  On 2 February 2010 the Baranya County Regional Court, acting as a second instance court, adopted a final judgment establishing the unlawfulness of the revocation of the applicant’s mandate on 22 March 2002.
9.  In the labour action concerning the disciplinary measure, the Zalaegerszeg Labour Court found for the applicant in an interim judgment on 3 April 2007 and established the unlawfulness of the sanction.
10.  As regards the applicant’s claim for salary arrears and the Authority’s action for the repayment of compensation, the proceedings appear to be still pending before the Kúria and the Budapest Surroundings High Court, respectively.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Balkány.
5.  On 11 November 2004 the applicant brought an action before the Debrecen Labour Court. She claimed that she had been unlawfully dismissed from public service.
6.  On 14 November 2007 the Labour Court found against her. Relying on various pieces of evidence, the court was satisfied that the reasons for the applicant’s dismissal were real and relevant.
7.  On 10 April 2008 the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
8.  On 11 November 2009 the Supreme Court rejected her petition for review (service: 17 December 2009).
9.  The applicant’s criminal accusations made in the above context against third persons were to no avail.
5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Ig.
6.  On 9 June 2008 the police fined the applicant 333.83 euros (EUR) for verbally and physically assaulting Š.S. The applicant lodged a request for judicial review in which he contested the finding of the police that he had hit Š.S. in the head. He requested that he and two witnesses who had been present on the spot at the time of the alleged commission of the minor offence be heard.
7.  On 4 March 2011 the Ljubljana Local Court heard the two witnesses proposed by the applicant, a police officer and another witness. On the basis of their submissions it rejected the applicant’s request for judicial review.
8.  On 8 June 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining that because the Local Court had failed to inform him and his lawyer of the hearing, he could not examine the witnesses and did not have any opportunity to be heard.
9.  On 13 September 2011 the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeal as inadmissible.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Smederevo.
5.  The applicant was employed by “HP Fagram DP”, a socially-owned company based in Smederevo (hereinafter – “the debtor”).
6.  On 30 September 2003 the Smederevo Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicant certain sums in respect of salary arrears, social security contributions and procedural costs.
7.  On 22 October 2003 the judgment became final.
8.  On 9 January 2004 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Smederevo Municipal Court.
9.  On 17 March 2003 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
10.  On 1 September 2004 the Požarevac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor, which led to the ongoing enforcement proceedings before the Smederevo Municipal Court being stayed.
11.  In 22 November 2004 the applicant duly registered a claim for the sums specified in the judgment referred to above.
12.  On 26 April 2005 the Commercial Court accepted the applicant’s claim. His right to separate settlement from the immovable property of the debtor was contested and he was instructed to initiate separate civil proceedings in order to secure his right to separate settlement of his claim.
13.  The applicant did not initiate separate civil proceedings.
14.  On 3 April 2008 the Commercial Court adopted the decision on final distribution of the company’s insolvency assets, classifying the applicant into the fourth sequence of payment. In the course of the insolvency proceedings the final judgment in the applicant’s favour was partially enforced.
5.  The applicants were born in 1972 and 1966 respectively. At the time of the events in question they were detained in Lovech Prison, serving sentences of life imprisonment, after being convicted of numerous crimes, including murder, rape and armed robberies.
6.  On an unspecified date in 2006 the two applicants brought proceedings against the Ministry of Justice under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act, seeking damages for the allegedly poor conditions of detention in Lovech Prison. The case was examined by the Sofia City Court, which accepted a request by the applicants to have two of their fellow inmates questioned as witnesses regarding the living conditions in the prison.
7.  A special court hearing for that purpose took place on 26 January 2007 in a hearing room in Lovech Prison.
8.  The applicants were brought to the hearing with their arms handcuffed behind their backs and their ankles shackled. Once the hearing began, Mr Radkov requested that his handcuffs be removed because he was uncomfortable. The judge presiding over the hearing refused, without giving any specific reasons. Mr Sabev then asked that it be noted in the record of the hearing that his handcuffs had not been removed either. The applicants’ arms remained handcuffed behind their backs until the end of the hearing.
9.  The two witnesses heard by the court – who were from the same group of life prisoners – had their handcuffs removed.
10.  A prosecutor was also present at the hearing.
11.  The hearing continued for about an hour.